Chapter XXIII: Front Matter (23)

On Mr. Lyon's observing, that if he should go into
Connecticut, and manage a press there six months, although
the people of that State were not fond of revolutionary
principles, he could effect a revolution, and turn out the
present Representatives--Mr. Griswold replied to these
remarks, and, amongst other things, said that, "If you go
into Connecticut, you had better wear your wooden sword,"
or words to that effect, alluding to Mr. Lyon's having been
cashiered in the army.

Mr. Lyon did not notice the allusion at this time, but
continued the conversation on the same subject. Mr.
Griswold then left his seat, and stood next to Mr. Lyon,
leaning on the bar, being outside the same.

On Mr. Lyon's saying he knew the people of Connecticut
well, having lived among them many years--that he had
frequent occasion to fight them in his own district, and
that he never failed to convince them--Mr. Griswold asked,
if he fought them with his wooden sword, on which Mr. Lyon
spat in his face.

The Committee having attentively considered the foregoing
state of facts, and having heard Mr. Lyon in his defence,
are of opinion that his conduct in this transaction was
highly indecorous, and unworthy of a member of this House.

They, therefore, recommend the adoption of the resolution
submitted to their consideration by the House, in the words
following, to wit:

"_Resolved_, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House, for
a violent attack and gross indecency, committed upon the
person of Roger Griswold, another member, in the presence
of the House while sitting, be for this disorderly behavior
expelled therefrom."

The report having been read,

Mr. LYON said, he did not think the evidence was stated in its full extent in this report. He wished, therefore, before the House proceeded in the business, they would hear the evidence themselves.

Mr. HARPER inquired of the SPEAKER whether that was the usual mode of proceeding?

The SPEAKER said, it was necessary first to take up the report for a second reading.

Mr. MACON observed that this was a very delicate and a very serious question, as it related to one of the members of that House, and as it respected the dignity of the House itself. He hoped, therefore, the report would be printed, that some time would be given to consider it, and that the House would themselves hear the testimony. The punishment which the report proposed was equal to death itself. He hoped, therefore, it would not be acted upon hastily, but made the order of the day for Monday.

Mr. HARPER did not wish to press the business in an improper manner, as it was certainly of great importance to a member of that House, to the House itself, and to the dignity of the country. It was usual to have all reports of any consequence printed, and a day or two given for consideration. He was not himself desirous of delay, as he was at present ready to vote upon the question; but, if other members wished it, he should not object to the motion proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. NICHOLAS took it for granted, that, whenever this subject came up, the House would think it necessary to go into an examination of the witnesses themselves, and not rely upon the manner in which their testimony had struck others. He thought it would be best, therefore, whilst the report was printing, to go on in the examination of witnesses.

The question for postponing till Monday was put and carried.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he had no objection to wait for the printing of the report, before the House proceeded to examine the witnesses, but he should not waive the right of having them re-examined before the House.

MONDAY, February 5.

Mr. D. FOSTER reported a bill for the relief of Oliver Pollock, which was committed for Wednesday.

_French Outrages._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

_Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
Representatives_:

I have received a letter from his Excellency Charles
Pinckney, Esq., Governor of the State of South Carolina,
dated the 22d October, 1797, enclosing a number of
depositions and witnesses to several captures and outrages
committed within and near the limits of the United States,
by a French privateer belonging to Cape Francois, or Monte
Christo, called the Vertitude or Fortitude, and commanded
by a person of the name of Jordon or Jourdain, and
particularly upon an English merchant ship named the
Oracabissa, which he first plundered and then burned, with
the rest of her cargo, of great value, within the territory
of the United States, in the harbor of Charleston, on the
17th of October last. Copies of which letter and
depositions, and also of several other depositions relative
to the same subject, received from the Collector of
Charleston, are herewith communicated.

Whenever the channel of diplomatical communication between
the United States and France shall be opened, I shall
demand satisfaction for the insult and reparation for the
injury.

I have transmitted these papers to Congress, not so much
for the purpose of communicating an account of so daring a
violation of the territory of the United States, as to show
the propriety and necessity of enabling the Executive
authority of Government to take measures for protecting the
citizens of the United States and such foreigners as have a
right to enjoy their peace, and the protection of their
laws, within their limits, in that as well as some other
harbors which are equally exposed.

JOHN ADAMS.

UNITED STATES, _February 5, 1798_.

This Message, with the documents accompanying it, was referred to the committee for considering on proper measures for the protection and defence of the country.

_Breach of Privilege._

Mr. SEWALL moved the House to take up the report of the Committee of Privileges, in order that it might be committed to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS wished to know whether evidence could be heard in a Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER said, the House might authorize the Committee of the Whole to hear evidence.

Mr. SEWALL moved the report to be committed. If gentlemen wished evidence to be heard before the committee, they would, of course, make an addition to his motion. For his own part he thought it unnecessary.

Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to evidence being heard before a Committee of the Whole, except that it might involve the subject in some embarrassment; as it was possible that a majority of the committee might come to a decision which, according to the constitution, it would require two-thirds of the House to confirm. He saw no reason for going into a committee, except that the SPEAKER would have to give his testimony; but he did not see why the SPEAKER might not give his testimony from his seat, as well as from any other place. By going into a committee, the subject would take up a longer time than it otherwise would do, as they should have twice to go over the same ground.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS was in favor of hearing the evidence before the committee.

Mr. THATCHER was not of opinion, with the gentleman from Virginia, that this matter should be run over as soon as possible. He thought it of infinite importance, as it respected the dignity of the House and the people at large, and he hoped it would go through every form of the House.

The question for a commitment was put and carried, and it was made the order for this day.

Mr. NICHOLAS then moved that the Committee of the Whole be authorized to examine testimony, and called for the yeas and nays upon the question; which being agreed upon, they were taken, and, so little opposition was there to this mode of proceeding that the question was carried, 88 to 4. The negatives were Messrs. GORDON, SEWALL, SITGREAVES, and THATCHER.

Mr. D. FOSTER moved that the committee should be authorized to report the whole of the evidence, as he thought it was important it should be entered upon the journals. Carried.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. DENT in the chair, on this subject.

Mr. THATCHER said it would be necessary that a Judge should attend to administer an oath to the members who should be called upon to give their testimony.

The CHAIRMAN informed the committee that the Judge of the District Court was in the House.

Judge PETERS was accordingly called upon.

Mr. RUTLEDGE desired an oath might be administered to the SPEAKER, Messrs. S. SMITH, BROOKS, HOSMER, COIT, DANA, GOODRICH, and CHAMPLIN; which was accordingly done.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, if there should be occasion, he should also call upon Judge CHIPMAN, a Senator from Vermont, as an evidence.

Mr. CHIPMAN was, towards the close of the sitting, also sworn.

Some conversation took place as to the best mode of taking the evidence, whether, as it was to be reported to the House, it should be received from the witnesses in writing, leaving them to be questioned afterwards by the members of the committee, or whether it should be given _viva voce_, deliberately, and taken down by the Clerk. The latter mode was at length adopted, and the SPEAKER proceeded to give his testimony.

[Taking the testimony in this case, and the debates upon
it, occupied the House until the 12th of February, when, a
motion having been made to amend the resolution of
expulsion, by substituting a reprimand, a vote was taken on
that question, and negatived--52 to 44. The vote was then
taken on the resolution of expulsion, and stood yeas 52,
nays 44. The constitution requiring two-thirds of the
members present to carry a vote of expulsion, the
Resolution was declared by the Speaker to be not carried.
The following were the yeas and nays:]

YEAS.--George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas. A. Bayard,
David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin,
John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik,
Samuel W. Dana, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, George Dent,
Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan
Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon,
William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley,
William Hindman, David Holmes, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H.
Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir,
William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison
G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, John Read, John
Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, Wm. Shepard,
Thos. Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg
Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson,
Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell,
Thomas Claiborne, Wm. Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay,
John Clopton, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Wm. Findlay,
John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Albert Gallatin,
William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A.
Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter
Jones, Edw. Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon,
Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony
New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith,
William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford,
Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van
Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert
Williams.

WEDNESDAY, February 14.

_Quakers' Memorial._

Mr. SITGREAVES moved the order of the day on the report of a select committee on the memorial of the people called Quakers; which motion being agreed to, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on the subject, Mr. DENT in the chair. The report having been read as follows:

"That, inasmuch as the said memorial and address presents,
in general terms only, certain subjects to the
consideration of the Legislature, without containing any
definite state of facts, or any specific application for
its interposition, the memorialists were desired to exhibit
a particular view of the grievances of which they
complained, in order that the attention of the House might
be directed to precise objects, and that it might be better
discerned whether the complaints of the memorialists were
of a nature to justify Legislative interference:

"That, in consequence of this request, the memorialists
laid before the committee the representation and documents
which accompany this report:

"That, on the subject of this representation, the
memorialists were invited to confer with the committee, and
were solicited to suggest the remedy which they conceived
it to be in the power of Congress to apply to the case, as
stated by them:

"That the committee, after several conferences with the
memorialists, and an attentive consideration of the
subject, are very clearly of opinion that the facts
disclosed in the said representation are exclusively of
judicial cognizance; and that it is not competent to the
Legislative authority of Congress to do any act in relation
to the matter thereof:

"Wherefore the committee recommend the following
resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the memorialists have leave to withdraw
the said memorial and address."

Mr. THATCHER could not say that he was perfectly satisfied with the report of the committee in all its parts. He wished the business disposed of without coming to any decisive resolution upon it, so as either to approve or disapprove of it. He was not ready to say that the facts disclosed in that memorial were exclusively of judicial cognizance, and that the Legislature of the Union was incompetent to do any thing in it. It might, however, be true, but it was not clear to him. He would rather that the subject should not now be acted upon: he would, therefore, propose an amendment to the report, which might conclude the business without coming to any resolution upon it, which had been the course heretofore taken with similar applications. He moved, therefore, to strike out the resolution giving the petitioners leave to withdraw their petition; and if his motion was agreed to, he should wish the committee to rise, and that the House would not act further upon it at present.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, he, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts, was dissatisfied with the report of the select committee. He thought the report ought to have stated that the peace of certain States in the Union had been much disturbed by applications of this kind. He had prepared a resolution to this effect, which he would read in his place. It was as follows:

"_Resolved_, That part of the memorial of the people called
Quakers has a tendency to disturb the tranquillity of some
of the States of the Union; that this House is not
competent to act upon it, and therefore they have leave to
withdraw their memorial."

There could be little difference of opinion on the assertion that the internal tranquillity of several States had been disturbed by these applications; and he believed there would be no difficulty in obtaining a majority of the House to declare it; as, if the Representatives of three or four States were to rise and declare the fact, it must have sufficient weight to carry a declaration of this kind. He had, however, mentioned the matter to some of his friends, and found it was not very agreeable to them, as they wished to get rid of the business without debate. But if the present motion were to obtain, he should afterwards bring forward this resolution.

The CHAIRMAN declared the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts out of order.

The question on the resolution, as reported, was put and carried, there being 74 votes in the affirmative. The committee then rose, and the House concurred in the report.

THURSDAY, February 15.

_Fracas in the House._

[About a quarter past eleven o'clock, after prayers, whilst the SPEAKER was in his chair, and many members in their places, but before the House had been called to order, and before the journal had been read, Mr. GRISWOLD entered the House, and observing Mr. LYON in his place (who was writing) he went up to him with a pretty strong walking stick in his hand, with which he immediately began to beat him with great violence. Mr. G.'s approach was observed by Mr. LYON, but before he could get from behind his desk he had received some severe blows. As soon as he got on the floor of the House he endeavored to lay hold of Mr. G. (having no stick or weapon in his hand) but he was prevented from doing so by Mr. G.'s falling back, and the continual blows with which he was assailed. At length getting behind the SPEAKER'S chair, Mr. L. snatched up the tongs from the fire; the combatants then closed and came down together upon the floor, Mr. G. being uppermost. The members in the House, who till now seemed to look on with amazement at the scene, without an attempt to put an end to it, got round the parties, and separated them, but not before Mr. L. had aimed a blow at Mr. G.'s head with the tongs, but which he parried off. The SPEAKER was now called upon to desire the members to take their seats and form the House. Whilst this was doing, the two enraged members met again without the bar, and, but for the doorkeeper and some gentlemen present, would have renewed the combat. Order having been obtained (at least as much as it was possible to obtain from the agitated state of the House) the Clerk proceeded to read the journal, and the business of the day was entered upon. It continued till one o'clock, when from the perturbation which was naturally occasioned by such a scene, and it being evident that business was very little attended to by a great part of the House, a motion for an adjournment was made and carried. It will be seen that no notice was taken of this proceeding in the course of the sitting.]

FRIDAY, February 16.

_Case of Griswold and Lyon._

Immediately upon the journals having been read,

Mr. DAVIS, of Kentucky, rose and proposed the following resolution for the adoption of the House:

"_Resolved_, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members
of this House, for violent and disorderly behavior
committed in the House, be expelled therefrom."

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped the resolution would be permitted to lie on the table.

Mr. DAVIS saw no reason for delaying a decision upon this resolution. He thought the conduct of these gentlemen had been so grossly violent, and so notorious to most of the members of the House, that there need be no hesitation in deciding upon it. If gentlemen wished, however, to take the same course which had been adopted on a former occasion, he should not object to it, though he thought it unnecessary. It was needless, now to say any thing as to the necessity of preserving the dignity and honor of that House; enough had already been said, and he thought pertinently said, on a former occasion on this subject. And as he believed neither the dignity, the honor, or peace of that House could be preserved whilst these members remained in it, he hoped the House would be unanimous in voting their expulsion.

Mr. THATCHER did not see why the innocent should be punished with the guilty. The gentleman who brought forward this proposition, he supposed, did not wish this. From what he saw of the affray, he did not think Mr. LYON deserved to be punished for the part he acted. He certainly received a severe beating, but he appeared to be passive from the beginning to the end; and he did not think Mr. LYON ought to be expelled because he was beaten. As to any investigation of what happened yesterday, he did not think it necessary, as most of the members of that House were eye-witnesses to the fact. But the gentleman said there would be no peace until these members were expelled. He did not know from what he drew his conclusions. What was done yesterday was done before the House was in session; and it had already been determined that acts of violence committed without the bar, during a session of the House, are not causes of expulsion. He did not know, therefore, how gentlemen would support the doctrine that a member ought to be expelled for an act of violence done before the House was in session. It might be necessary, however, to investigate other facts connected with these.

Mr. J. PARKER seconded the motion for the expulsion of these members, because he believed there would be no peace in the House until they were expelled. He was sorry the gentleman from Massachusetts should have said he saw nothing but what was passive on the part of Mr. LYON. He himself saw more, and that gentleman must have seen it if he had his eyes about him. He said, that after the offending members had been separated Mr. LYON met Mr. GRISWOLD without the bar of the House and began to belabor him with his cane, when they were again separated. The attack of yesterday, Mr. P. said, at a time when the House ought to have been in session though it had not come to order, would fix an indelible stain upon it; and if these members were not expelled, no member could consider himself as safe in his seat. Such a transaction would certainly lower that House in the estimation of their constituents. He had even heard this morning, as he came to the Hall, persons in the street call out, "There is nothing to do in Congress to-day--there's no fighting going on!" In order to get rid of these reproaches, he hoped all parties would unite in expelling these members. If their constituents chose to send them back, he hoped no member would associate with or take notice of them. And if a vote of expulsion should be agreed upon, he would afterwards move to expunge from the journals all the entries relative to these disgraceful proceedings.

Mr. NICHOLAS wished the motion to lie upon the table for the present, because he was not himself prepared to decide upon the subject; he wished, also, that whenever the motion was taken up, gentlemen might come with their minds determined upon it, so that a long debate might not be necessary. He therefore moved to postpone the consideration of this resolution to Monday.

Mr. GORDON wished to know what part of the resolution the gentleman from Virginia was not ready to act upon?

Mr. NICHOLAS did not understand the drift of the gentleman's question. If he meant to ask whether he (Mr. N.) disapproved of the vote which he had already given, he would answer him _he did not_.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said he should approve of the motion for postponement, if it were made for to-morrow, instead of Monday; and he hoped the business would not only be taken up to-morrow, but be concluded before they rose. He had sat with great patience during the late debate, but he should be opposed to going into any further lengthy proceedings on so disagreeable a subject, which would prevent them from doing the business of the nation, for which they were sent.

Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to make the question the order for to-morrow, if the House met.

Mr. THATCHER observed, that he had before said that he had seen nothing on the part of Mr. LYON, in the affray of yesterday, which ought to subject him to expulsion; but the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. PARKER) said, that if he (Mr. T.) had had his eyes about him, he might have seen something for which he ought to be expelled. If, indeed, he had _eyes behind_ he might have seen what he alluded to; but this not being the case, he did not see it. As far as the business respects Mr. LYON, some inquiry might be necessary, as all he saw was, that Mr. LYON suffered much, without any offence on his part. He thought, therefore, the business should be gone into, as on a former occasion, and that they ought to examine the subject with candor, and then they should doubtless decide upon it with propriety.

Mr. SITGREAVES was against the postponement, in order that a different course might be taken. He knew nothing in this case which distinguished it from a late case, and therefore could not see why the same course ought not to be pursued as was then pursued. He should therefore vote against a postponement, in order that the resolution might be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. HARPER inquired whether such a motion would not supersede a motion for postponement.

The SPEAKER said, it would.

Mr. HARPER then made the motion.

Mr. GALLATIN asked whether he understood the SPEAKER rightly, that a motion for a reference to a committee superseded a motion for postponement?

The SPEAKER said, it did.

Mr. NICHOLAS asked whether it would not then be in order to postpone the consideration of the subject?

The SPEAKER answered, it would.

Mr. NICHOLAS renewed the motion for a postponement till to-morrow.

Mr. HARPER, believing that it would be proper to refer this resolution to a committee, as before, especially as some of the facts did not pass within the view of the House, he should vote against the postponement--not because he wished to avoid a vote on the question; for, if it should be the opinion of the House that it ought not to go to a committee, he was perfectly ready to give a vote upon the question; but he thought it better that the business should have this course. With respect to any discussion being necessary upon this subject, he perhaps might think it necessary to make some observations upon it, when the question came before the House for decision; for, though some gentlemen might be endued with the happy faculty of doing every thing in an instant, he could not boast of possessing that faculty. But, even if he were not desirous of discussion for his own information, he wished it for the information of the public; and, notwithstanding all that the House had heard about a waste of public money and public time, he believed they should best serve the public by suffering the business to take the usual course.

The motion for a postponement was put and negatived.

Mr. SITGREAVES then moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. HARPER moved that the committee have leave to sit during the session of the House.

Mr. THATCHER thought, as it was probable a number of members might be wanted to give evidence, the House had better adjourn, as on a former occasion, as it would not be proper to go on with business when so many members were absent.

Mr. T. CLAIBORNE hoped leave would not be granted for the committee to sit immediately. He wished them coolly to deliberate upon the business, which they could scarcely be expected to do, when their passions were so strongly affected as they must be at present.

The question for leave to sit during the session was put and carried--46 to 36.

Mr. HARPER moved that the committee be instructed to report to the House the evidence in writing, upon which they shall found their report.

Mr. KITTERA thought the facts were so notorious that there was no necessity for this instruction.

Mr. HARPER said if his friend from Pennsylvania could say that every body would be satisfied with the report of the committee without the evidence, he would not insist upon this motion. But if the evidence was not reported, how could he say that all the witnesses might not again be called before the House? It was his wish to prevent this.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said there was a considerable difference between this transaction and the one lately under consideration. He thought in this case it would probably save much trouble to report the evidence.

Mr. BROOKS said it must be recollected that the gentleman from Virginia was not satisfied with the former report. He wished to hear the witnesses themselves; and if the evidence was to be reported, he did not suppose it would be satisfactory.

Mr. NICHOLAS seconded the motion, because it would be likely to shorten the business; but if, when the testimony came to be reported, there was any obscurity in it, he should feel it necessary to ask the witnesses questions by way of elucidation, as every man who was called upon as a judge, should be in full possession of every fact relative to the subject.

Mr. BROOKS said the gentleman who had just sat down, would have no difficulty in pointing out some obscurity, in order to furnish an apology for rehearing of the witnesses.

Mr. KITTERA said if to report the evidence would prevent the necessity of hearing the witnesses in the House, he should not object to it; but he believed this would not be the case.

Mr. VENABLE was before of opinion that it would have been best for witnesses to have delivered their evidence in writing. He hoped that course would now be taken, and then there would be no difficulty in reporting it to the House; and if it should be found necessary, in order to elucidate any part of it, to put any questions to the witnesses in the House, the business would be greatly facilitated and shortened by the evidence being reported.

The question was put and carried.

Mr. OTIS believed that something further was necessary to be done in respect to the unfortunate business, which had already engaged the attention of the House. From what had happened in the view of the House, it appears that the parties are in the habit of conflicting with each other; and except they are restrained by some authority which shall be sufficiently imposing upon them, further violence may be expected. In order, therefore, to secure this House from future violations of its dignity and order, he proposed the following resolution for adoption:

"_Resolved_, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members
of this House, be respectively required by the SPEAKER to
pledge their words to this House, that they will not commit
any act of violence upon each other during this session;
and that if either refuse to make such engagements, the
party refusing shall be committed to the custody of the
Sergeant-at-arms, until he shall comply with this
obligation."

Mr. SEWALL understood a motion had been agreed to in relation to the affair of yesterday, which might produce an expulsion of the members in question. He thought it would be better, therefore, to alter the wording of the resolution, and instead of "during this session," say "during the continuance of the examination of the business before the House."

Mr. SITGREAVES did not think any alterations were necessary. An expulsion of the members was a possible, but not a necessary result. If an expulsion does not take place, the resolution will remain in operation for the remainder of the session, which would be proper; and, if an expulsion took place, its operation would fall of course.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS thought it best to pass the resolution as it stood. If a similar resolution had been entered into on a former occasion, it would probably have prevented what had now taken place.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS called for the reading of the resolution which was passed on a former occasion. [It was read. It stated "that any personal contest between the members, before the House had come to a decision upon the business, would be considered as a high breach of privileges."] Mr. W. thought this resolution went as far as the House had a right to go. The resolution proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts, went farther, he thought, than they had power to go. It went to imprison one or both of the parties, if he or they refused to comply with the request of the House. He had his doubts whether that House had the constitutional power to imprison a man for a crime, as the law only would do this. He thought a resolution, similar to that adopted on a former occasion, would be sufficient at present; and if the mover did not think proper so to alter it, he would himself move an amendment for this purpose.

Mr. OTIS flattered himself that his object would have met with the concurrence of all sides of the House, believing that all wished to prevent future violations of order and peace. With respect to the doubts of the gentleman from North Carolina, his politics seemed to be altogether a system of _doubts_. If this system was common, it would be extremely difficult to progress with business at all. He believed, on the present occasion, these doubts were groundless. When an act of violence was done in the view of the members of the House, they had certainly the power to obtain some security against a repetition of such violence. If this was not done, the presumption was, the business of the session might be continually interrupted; and had they not the right of securing the peaceful exercise of their legislative functions for the remainder of the session? He thought this could not be seriously doubted. With respect to the former resolution, if he had been in his place, he should have suggested its impropriety; for, by it, it seemed to be implied that, after the question was decided, though they could not do it before, the members in question would be at liberty to commit any act of violence they pleased upon each other. They had seen the consequence. He hoped, therefore, the House would restrain these gentlemen in such a manner as that it may not be in their power again to interrupt their proceedings.

The question was then taken on the resolution, and carried by a large majority, there being 73 votes in favor of it.

The SPEAKER asked, whether it was the pleasure of the House that the Sergeant-at-arms should be sent for Mr. LYON?

Mr. SITGREAVES said it might not be convenient for Mr. LYON to attend the House; he asked whether the resolution might not be sent to him, and his answer be received in writing?

Mr. NICHOLAS supposed, that if both gentlemen prepared a declaration in writing, and presented it to-morrow, it would answer the purpose.

Mr. HARPER replied, the mischief intended to be guarded against might in the mean time be done.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he had just been called out by a member of the House, who had asked him whether he thought it would be proper for Mr. LYON to attend the House. He supposed, therefore, if the Sergeant-at-arms was sent for him, he would immediately attend.

Mr. HARPER hoped the Sergeant-at-arms would be sent.

The SPEAKER said, as soon as the Clerk had made a copy of the resolution, the Sergeant-at-arms would wait upon Mr. LYON with it.

Mr. LYON having entered,

The SPEAKER said, the members from Vermont and Connecticut being now in their places, he should proceed to read the resolution which had been entered into by the House. [He then read the resolution.]

As soon as it was finished reading,

Mr. GRISWOLD rose and said, he should not hesitate to enter into the proposed engagement.

Mr. LYON also rose and said, he was ready, as it was the wish of the House, to agree to the proposition.

The SPEAKER said, then you do accordingly agree to this proposition?

Both answered, "I do agree."

MONDAY, February 19.

_Amy Dardin._

Upon motion of Mr. T. CLAIBORNE, the following resolution was agreed to--45 to 40:

"_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a
bill for the relief of Amy Dardin."

[This claim has been long before Congress, and been several times the subject of discussion. It is for the value of the famous horse Romulus, the property of the husband of the petitioner, pressed into the service of the United States during the war. The case of the widow is evidently a hard one, and this is the second time a vote has been obtained in her favor, which has afterwards been reversed.]

The committee rose, reported their agreement to the three resolutions, and had leave to sit again. The House took up the two first, agreed to them, and directed the Committee of Claims to bring in a bill or bills accordingly. When the third resolution came to be considered, the yeas and nays were called for, and its adoption was strongly opposed by Messrs. HARPER, NICHOLAS, and BAYARD, on the ground of its throwing open a door to every claim which had heretofore been determined as barred, as cutting up by the root all the acts of limitation; that it was also setting aside these laws in the most objectionable way, by inviting every person, who had an unsatisfied claim, to petition Congress for relief, which would of course engage much of their time. If the acts were to be set aside, it would be much better and less expensive therefore to authorize the proper department to settle these claims, than that the time of the House should be engaged in investigating and settling them.

On the other hand, its adoption was advocated by Messrs. GALLATIN and T. CLAIBORNE. This was stated as a hard case; that this determination would not open the acts of limitation to any but such as Congress might deem extremely hard cases; that it would give the Treasury no power whatever to settle any claim: the power, therefore, could not be abused, except they themselves abused it; that whatever policy there might be in acts of limitation, they were certainly liable to strong objections; they knew they were honorably indebted a sum of money, but they determine not to pay it, merely because the paying it might render the accounts at the Treasury less simple, or because they would be liable to pay more than is convenient. This policy might be justifiable, but it bore very hard upon individual sufferers. It was argued, therefore, that without opening the acts generally, when a strong, unequivocal claim was presented, which was in the hands of the original holder, and where, of course, there could be no possibility of fraud, relief might and ought to be granted.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS was an enemy to acts of limitation, as he thought a debt once due must always be due until paid; but he would either have them opened generally, or not at all.

The yeas and nays upon agreeing to this proposition for setting aside the act of limitation in this case were taken, and decided, yeas 35, nays 55, as follows:

YEAS.--David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas
Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay,
John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent,
Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James
Gillespie, William Barry Grove, Carter B. Harrison, David
Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke,
Matthew Lyon, James Machir, Blair McClenachan, Joseph
McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, John Rutledge, jr.,
William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sumter, Abraham
Trigg, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and
Robert Williams.

NAYS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James
A. Bayard, Thomas Blount, David Brooks, Nathan Bryan,
Stephen Bullock, Dempsey Burges, Christopher G. Champlin,
John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik,
Samuel W. Dana, Thomas Evans, William Findlay, Abiel
Foster, Dwight Foster, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich,
William Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, John A.
Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, Jonathan N.
Havens, Wm. Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay,
John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, Wm.
Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, John Nicholas,
Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, James Schureman,
Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Samuel Sitgreaves,
Nathaniel Smith, Samuel Smith, Peleg Sprague, Richard
Stanford, George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, Thomas
Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John
Williams.

Mr. HARPER then proposed the following resolution, which was agreed to:

_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petition of Amy Dardin
ought not to be granted.

TUESDAY, February 20.

_Case of Griswold and Lyon._

Mr. VENABLE, from the Committee of Privileges, laid the following report upon the table, together with the evidence relative thereto:

The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred a
resolution in the following words: "_Resolved_, That Roger
Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members of this House, for
violent and disorderly behavior committed in the House, be
expelled therefrom," with instructions to report the
evidence in writing, have, according to the orders of the
House, proceeded to take the evidence, which they herewith
report; and they report further, that it is their opinion
that the said resolution ought to be disagreed to.

THURSDAY, February 22.

The usual time of calling the House to order being arrived, the Clerk desired members to take their seats; which being done,

Mr. KITTERA said, the SPEAKER had desired him to inform the House that he was so much indisposed as to be unable to attend the House to-day. Mr. K. suggested the propriety, therefore, of adjourning the orders of to-day till to-morrow.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS did not see a necessity for this. He thought the House might informally go into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Privileges. He had seen this course taken in other Legislative bodies, and as it would be the means of saving a day, he hoped this mode would now be adopted.

Mr. THATCHER hoped gentlemen would not consent to go on with business in an informal manner, since it was evident they were sufficiently informal with all their forms.

Mr. HARRISON inquired if there was any probability that the SPEAKER would be able to attend the House to-morrow. If not, he should be for choosing a temporary Speaker.

Mr. KITTERA said, the indisposition of the SPEAKER was occasioned by a severe headache, to which he was subject; that it generally continued for six or eight hours, and afterwards he was perfectly well.

The question for postponement of the orders of the day till to-morrow was then put by the Clerk, and carried; and then the House adjourned till to-morrow.

FRIDAY, February 23.

The bill providing for the widows and orphans of certain deceased officers, was read the third time, and passed.

_Revenue Statements._

A communication was laid before the House by the SPEAKER, from the Secretary of the Treasury, enclosing sundry documents prepared by the late Commissioner of the Revenue, in consequence of a resolution of the House of the 6th of January, 1798, requiring to be laid before the House every session, within ten days after its meeting, a statement of the net produce of the internal revenues, the salaries of the Collectors, &c., for the year preceding. The Secretary apologizes for not having made the communication sooner. It was ordered to be printed.

_Case of Griswold and Lyon._

The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of Privileges, of the twentieth instant; and the same being again read in the words following, to wit:

The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred a
resolution in the following words, to wit: "_Resolved_,
That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members of this
House, for riotous and disorderly behavior, committed in
the House, be expelled therefrom," with instructions to
report the evidence in writing, have, according to the
order of the House, proceeded to take the evidence, which
they herewith report; and they report further, that it is
their opinion that the said resolution be disagreed to.

Mr. DAVIS said he hoped the House would disagree to the report of their Committee of Privileges; after this was done, the resolution could be altered in such a manner as gentlemen might think proper.

Mr. DENT called for the yeas and nays. Agreed to be taken.

Mr. SITGREAVES said there were many considerations which should incline the House to come to a decision upon the present business without entering into any unnecessary discussion; and there were others which should lead them to avoid coming to an immediate decision. He should, therefore, move that the further consideration of this subject be postponed until the 4th of March, 1799.

Mr. NICHOLAS called for the yeas and nays upon this question; which being agreed to, were taken, and stood--yeas 38, nays 53.

The motion for postponement being lost, the question on agreeing to the report of the committee recurred.

Mr. BAYARD believed it would not be in order to call for a division of the question. The resolution implicated two persons, which he thought improper. If the report of the committee was, however, disagreed to, he supposed it would then be in order to move for a division of the question. He should, therefore, vote against the report, as he wished the cases to be separately considered, as they stood on distinct ground, and were not attended with the same circumstances; and, reasoning from analogy, he knew of no instance in a court of justice, where two persons had ever been included in the same charge when their crimes were different. If the situation of both these gentlemen had been the same, there might have been propriety in coupling them together; but as this was not the case, he was opposed to taking an opinion upon both together.

Mr. MCDOWELL thought it would be proper to take the same course in this business as was taken in a former case. He moved, therefore, that the report be read a second time, for the purpose of committing it to a committee of the whole House.

Mr. GORDON was opposed to this mode of proceeding. Every one knew the question, and were as well prepared to decide upon it now, as they would be after going into a committee upon it.

Mr. GILES thought it would comport more with the dignity of the House to decide this business without going into a Committee of the Whole, as he believed every one had made up his mind upon it. If gentlemen intended by the course heretofore taken to raise the dignity of the House, he thought they had deceived themselves; for he believed the House was never in a less dignified attitude than during that discussion.

Mr. MCDOWELL thought the mode he had pointed out necessary, for the sake of uniformity; but, as other gentlemen seemed to think it unnecessary, he would withdraw his motion.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS wished to know whether it would be in order to amend the report of the Committee of Privileges, or to suggest the propriety of disagreeing to it, for the purpose of substituting a different punishment from that proposed, viz: that the offending members should be reprimanded by the Speaker in the presence of the House? He believed that a punishment of this kind would satisfy many gentlemen who did not wish to expel the members, but who, at the same time, did not wish they should go unpunished.

The SPEAKER said that motion would be in order after the report of the committee was decided upon.

Mr. GALLATIN remarked, that if the report was agreed to, the resolution for an expulsion would of course be negatived, and then any other proposition would be in order; and, on the other hand, if the report was disagreed to, the resolution would be before them, and open to amendment. Mr. G. said he rose to make an observation upon what fell from the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD.) That gentleman had said he would vote against the report, because he wished to distinguish between the two members. The reason which he gave, though he might have good reasons for his vote, did not appear to him to be correct. That gentleman seemed to suppose that the facts for which the two members were to be expelled, were facts committed at different times, and of a different nature; whereas the facts for which both were proposed to be expelled, were offences of the same nature, and committed on the same day. What related to the previous conduct of the member from Vermont, was not now under consideration. In order to have that conduct before them, it would be necessary that a reconsideration of it should be moved by a member who voted against that member's expulsion, and seconded by another member who voted on the same side of the question. The argument of the gentleman from Delaware, therefore, did not apply. He said he should himself vote in favor of the report of the Committee of Privileges. He was against expelling either of the gentlemen.

Mr. DANA agreed with the gentleman last up, in his conclusions; but he did not seem rightly to have understood the argument of the gentleman from Delaware. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania was acquainted with legal principles, with established principles relative to punishment, he must know that no persons can be charged jointly with an offence, except jointly guilty, and except they had mutually agreed to commit the offence. The resolution, in its present form, therefore, offended against established maxims of propriety.

Mr. BAYARD said, the statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was not correct. He had stated that the offences of the two members were the same in circumstances, and committed at the same time. He apprehended the two cases were very distinct; as, by the depositions before the House, it appeared that the offence of the member from Connecticut was committed _before_ the House was called to order, and that the offence of the member from Vermont was committed _after_ the House was called to order. The argument most depended upon in a former case, against the expulsion of the member from Vermont, was that which insisted that the act of violence complained of being committed when the House was not in session, was not a cause of expulsion. If this argument had weight at that time, it ought also to have weight in the present case. It would, therefore, be the height of injustice to blend the two cases together; since there might be cause for expelling one member and not the other.

The SPEAKER observed that every thing which had been said with respect to a division of the question was out of order, as it could not be divided. He would also remark, in order to shorten the debate, that the House was not called to order when the stroke was made by the member from Vermont upon the member from Connecticut without the bar of the House.

Mr. HARPER asked, if the report of the committee should not be agreed to, whether the resolution might not then be agreed to?

The SPEAKER replied, it could not be divided; but a separate resolution might be brought forward.

The question on agreeing to the report of the committee, which recommended a disagreement to the resolution for an expulsion of the two members was then taken, and stood--yeas 73, nays 21.

The resolution for an expulsion having been disagreed to,

Mr. R. WILLIAMS proposed a resolution in the following words:

"_Resolved_, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, for
riotous and disorderly behavior in this House, are highly
censurable, and that they be reprimanded by the Speaker in
the presence of this House."

Mr. HARPER moved the previous question upon this resolution. He did it, he said, upon this ground. The House had just decided, and they had lately decided in another instance, that disorderly conduct shall not be punished by expulsion; and it was his opinion that no less punishment than expulsion ought to be inflicted, as he was unwilling to diminish the reprehensive power of the House, by inflicting what he thought inadequate punishment for offences of this nature. If there were any gentlemen who thought this conduct excusable, and that it ought not to be punished, they would, of course, vote in favor of the previous question; and those who thought with him, that both ought to be expelled, would also vote in favor of it.

Mr. NICHOLAS called for the yeas and nays upon this question. Agreed to be taken.

Mr. GALLATIN said, by the gentleman from South Carolina having moved the previous question, he had excluded any discussion upon the merits of the main question. Mr. G. wished some reasons might be given why the main question ought not to be put. Those given by the gentleman from South Carolina were applicable to the resolution itself: they were reasons why he should vote against the resolution, but they did not strike him as reasons why the question should not at all be taken.

The previous question was then put in this form: "Shall the main question (viz: the resolution for reprimanding the offending members) now be put?" And the yeas and nays were taken, and stood--yeas 47, nays 48, as follows:

YEAS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Samuel
J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole
Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis,
John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, John
Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Albert Gallatin, William
B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna,
Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister,
David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew
Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell,
John Milledge, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J.
Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg,
Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.